Talk:Footjob

Photo

• I just removed the photo, does Wikipedia need a picture of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.214.70 (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

  • If it's free (it is), relevant (it is) and demonstrates something visually (it does), why not use it? GRAPPLE X 14:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, the current picture should be deleted. The description of the technique is enough for us who were just planning on reading the article and not see it too. If the community is inistent, I suggest using the picture in the Spanish version, which has less view. --The Editors United (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    • To be frank, the article is about a sexual act and a depiction which clearly shows it is to be expected. Opposition based on the fact that it's graphic is a wilful overlooking of WP:NOTCENSORED, as such an image adds a level of understanding to an article, and being free, offers no reason not to use it. If I read the article on Forth Bridge, I'd expect a picture of the bridge, even if words alone could convey everything in the image. This isn't a graphic image being sprung on people who are unsuspecting of such a thing, it's a fitting image used in exactly the context that should be expected. GRAPPLE X 18:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I guess so. But I took the liberty to change it to one I thought was more 'scientific'. --The Editors United (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
      • That's fair enough (I can't see the difference really) but I restored the alt text you had removed; per MOS:ACCESS it's a good idea to keep alt text attached to images so that the visually impaired can still understand them through screenreaders. GRAPPLE X 18:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I also didn't see much difference, and found the other picture to be more aesthetically interesting (but I recognize that that's a personal preference). I still don't feel that the picture of the "reverse footjob" is as wholly representative of footjob techniques. It IS a footjob, to be sure, but I believe that the picture I have replaced it with is a better representation, as it shows not only the soles of the feet and underside of the toes, but the top side of one of the feet and toes. I feel that this picture is a more "scientific" representation of footjobs as a whole, given its relative nature to foot fetishism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangerdiabolik70 (talk
      • Hm. It's more 'scientific' that than the first one you post, but equally as the 'reverse footjob'. I however do say we need one of the female or say one with high heels, sandals etc. Otherwise not any of the ones in the Gallery. --The Editors United (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh come ON 95.235.224.108 (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

•Reverted main photo to previous photo as the newer one was out of focus. Also, as previously discussed by user Dangerdiabolik70, the previous photo is arguably a better representation of footjobs (see his description above). Additionally, deleted the second, unnecessary photo. Mojojojojojo (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The following has been merged from previously separate sections to keep this discussion in one place.

Images

I have reverted two edits removing images without explanation. Please explain why you oppose including these images. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

ElliotNettles is the editor who removed the images. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I want these photos to be removed permanently. I do not care if Wikipedia is an uncensored website. It is still disgustingly inappropriate and should be properly dealt with. I do not see why this matters so much to all of you. Please, remove them. ElliotNettles (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)ElliotNettles

Your personal disgust is not relevant to determining content. I assume you've read the note I placed on your talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I am disgusted by the fact that these photos have still not been removed. You are very persistent, Neil. It is not an admirable trait. ElliotNettles (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)ElliotNettles

The images appropriate for an article on this subject, your disgust with human sexuality is your problem. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 07:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Petition to remove the footjob photographs

Hello. As some of you may know I have been trying to rid the footjob page of their inappropriate photos. While I realize this does not go against the guidelines of Wikipedia I still think it would be appropriate to have them removed for several reasons. One of these reasons being that children under a legal age have access to viewing these pornographic images. You cannot simply restrict them from accessing the sexuality articles, but you could at least help the issue by removing these photos. Distributing pornography to kids under the age of 18 is illegal, is it not? These are obvious exposed photos of male genitalia. While photos may help with gaining knowledge on the subject they should at least be replaced with something a bit more minor such as drawings. This would not only benefit the adolescents, but would also help cease the constant removal and reversing of these images. I, myself, am 16. I had no desire to gain knowledge of this subject with pornographic imagery. I find these photos to be distasteful for several logical reasons. And I am sure it could be a traumatizing experience for a far younger child to stumble across them. I would like my words to be heeded and taken into serious consideration. ElliotNettles (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)ElliotNettles

• Oppose but willing to reconsider if a specific high quality freely licensed drawing is brought forward as an alternative. Wikipedia is not censored. If you object to the photos, ElliotNettles, simply do not read the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. These images are appropriate for this subject, and in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose ElliotNettles' reasons do not come from Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and these pictures are not deemed pornographic by legal standards, --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

To be completely fair Neil, that is a photograph that displays sexual organs as well as sexual activity itself. While it is not meant to be erotic or arousing for the purpose you are using it for, it still has pornographic nature. Also, if you reverse search the photos on Google Images you will find them being connected to actual pornography websites. I can provide screenshots of this if it is needed. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But as Cullen suggested he may reconsider for a high-quality illustration; I feel that would be the best alternative to this situation. ElliotNettles (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)ElliotNettles

Could a drawing or some digital work be used as an alternative? Fimbulvintur (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Could a drawing or some digital work be used as an alternative? Fimbulvintur (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as wikipedia is not censored. The images pertain to the article. That children can access them is not an issue to me as they can access that in many places. Mildly condemned about what appears to be a veiled legal thread in the op's comments. The personal taste of one editor is not reason to remove these images. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I have been involved in a similar discussion for the Woman on top article in 2010, in which even an admin objected to the image, and it was concluded the photograph was not appropriate as there was no evidence the subjects consented to the image being there and the existing illustrations were adequate. User:kjkeefe pointed out that the laws of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers were based, includes US federal law under which US Code, Title 18, Section 2257, wikipedia must maintain well-documented records of each person in any pornographic media it hosts in order to ensure that the participants are of legal age and able to consent. I have also noticed consent does not seem to have been previously discussed here. There is also the possibility that a person in the photo may withdraw consent which would be a disadvantage of a photo over an illustration. In another discussion it was concluded that although some editors prefer an illustration over a photographic image it was decided to keep the photo until it can be replaced with a higher quality illustration. Tk420 (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Anti- foot fetish bias?

The VfD ended with a decision to redirect to Foot fetishism, and that was done. Eventually, the redirect ended up pointing to Non-penetrative sex although there doesn't seem to have been any discussion or consensual process. Whatever. What I'm addressing today is that at Non-penetrative sex the only activity in the entire list of Non-penetrative sex#Types of non-penetrative sexual activity to not have a wikilink is footjob. That's understandable, because it would create a loop, but it's unfair. Every other sexual activity on the list (except Intergluteal sex, currently unlinked) is wikilinked and points to its own page.

To correct this perceived bias, I propose 1) immediate reersion of the redirect to Foot fetishism, as per the VfD, and either 2) try to put some real content here that is not in Foot fetishism, or 3) extract some Footjob material from Foot fetishism and use it here, with a link from Foot fetishism to here, acting as a "bridge" between Non-penetrative sex and Foot fetishism, describing a specific activity that fits into both categories.

I will wait a while before undertaking this task, in case anyone objects. -- 192.115.133.116 (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I was referring to steps 2 or 3 for discussion. Step 1, restoration of the original consensus, I already did. -- 192.115.133.116 (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Article about Footjob

This article contains the definition of "Footjob", taken from different references. Thank you very much. - Margarita1986. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margarita1986 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Footjob in the eroticism

The section "The Footjob in the eroticism" seems like little more than a laundry list of actresses and films featuring footjobs. I think it is time to clean this part up, but thought I would start a talk section to discuss what would be best. Thanks.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Stuff

Could we not have lists of random "stuff" please? Unsourced and unselected lists of DVDs which might or might show this, or actors who might have appeared in them, are not useful. At a minimum, we need a reliable source to verify the material, and some indication of why it might be notable. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC) its very funny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.64.92 (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Eva Longoria

The current wording for that section makes it sound like she actually performed a footjob on Jesse Metcalfe. Shouldn't this be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.38.143 (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Teamwork

This is my first Wikipedia page that I have significantly made better! I need a digital pat on the back. --The Editors United (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Non-penetrative

I am wondering why is this a non-penetrative sexual practice - couldn't it be a penetrative practice if it is performed on a woman? Would it be called differently? If so, we could give a link in an article. Anyway, I'm just raising this issue, since the first sentence suggests that there could be a penetrative counterpart to a footjob, but it is later not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:3400:8200:39D3:7C73:549C:B68 (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Critiques if androcentric language and sexual scripts side, the reason is because nothing is being inserted into orifice. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)